Welfare needs to go

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We don't need reform, we need the right kind of reform.

What is the right kind of reform, that you suggest?

First read again what I already said and think about it.

...

The goal if any plan should be to start wherever people are and build capacity. This means creating some space or environment, changing the system, so that people can have some opportunity to do for themselves, and to create something of worth. That can and should be done in a way that has nothing to do with helping them. People hate those who help them because they envy them. They compare who they are and who the helper is and use it to hate themselves more.

Give an example how this can be accomplished. It can be a historical reference where this has been successful, or a conceptual example that hasn't been tried yet. But give me an example of substance.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We don't need reform, we need the right kind of reform.

What is the right kind of reform, that you suggest?

First read again what I already said and think about it.

...

The goal if any plan should be to start wherever people are and build capacity. This means creating some space or environment, changing the system, so that people can have some opportunity to do for themselves, and to create something of worth. That can and should be done in a way that has nothing to do with helping them. People hate those who help them because they envy them. They compare who they are and who the helper is and use it to hate themselves more.

Give an example how this can be accomplished. It can be a historical reference where this has been successful, or a conceptual example that hasn't been tried yet. But give me an example of substance.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BigDH01
I'm lifting myself from another thread.

The elimination of welfare is not a credible threat.

1) While it may seem nice to punish the parents, by necessity you also punish their children. As a society, we recognize that children should have basic needs met, such as food and education. We believe this knowing that children aren't responsible for the home they were born into.

2) As everyone knows this, no threat made by the government with regards to the elimination of welfare will be taken seriously. The government won't (can't) actually punish the mother after she's committed the sin by starving her child. And as fiscally conservative as many members in this thread have been, I doubt very few would sit down with a welfare mother and her family that they won't be receiving any more money or foodstamps.

3) It is likely unreasonable to expect that a mother suddenly removed from welfare will be able to find work that pays enough to care for her child(ren). This is especially true as welfare recipients are likely coalesced into certain areas and removing them all at once from aid will flood the local market with cheap labor. This point is especially true in the upcoming recession.

4) We recognize that welfare, while it might not be great, is likely cheaper than the alternative. Given assumption 1, the children will need care after birth regardless of who gives it. The state is faced with two options: 1) pay the mother to care for the child or 2) take possession of the child and pay for the care. Option 2 can be quite expensive for the state (my siblings work as Boy's Town of America so I have some idea what is paid to keep a child), likely moreso than simply pay the mother for the child's expense. Placing the children in group homes means paying full time staff as well as assuming all legal liabilities. From a pragmatic approach, welfare might be the cheaper option.

Now, one might say that option #2, the removal of welfare, discourages individuals from getting pregnant thereby resulting in fewer pregnancies. This would be true if the motivation for pregnancy was money. According to posts earlier in this thread, teenage pregnancy was driven by attention-seeking behavior or was unplanned. I am not an expert in this area and it is possible that money is a motivating factor. However, I think it would be foolish to think that money is always the dominating factor and thus welfare or child removal of some sort will have to be implemented. If welfare is chosen, then the mother's motives are rather inconsequential. If child removal is chosen, then as a society we must decide that mother's do not have an inherent right to keep their child and that it is property of the state.

Of course, the above explanation falls apart under key conditions. If society decides that it isn't important that every child have their basic needs met, then we can scrap the system all together as we no longer care about the child's welfare. You'd likely see far more situations like that in Nebraska where children are just left at hospitals. The state can then choose to care for the child or simply hope that a private entity assumes care for the child. In certain areas of the country, I'm not sure how plausible the latter really is, but again, this is an unknown.

We could also take a draconian view on reproductive rights. Perhaps reversible sterilization that can only be undone if the would be mother can prove her (and perhaps her family's) ability and willingness to care for the child. Perhaps any pregnancy should be terminated if the mother is unable to care for the child. This obviously requires a drastic departure from what we've done in the past.

Bottom line, as long as we believe in reproductive freedom and the right of every child to have their basic needs met, the state will spend money in caring for some children. Without resorting to extreme measures, the best thing to do is to take the more pragmatic approach. What is the cheapest way to care for these children? Is it best to make poor children wards of the state or is it best to give the mothers state aid to care for their own child? I'm sure an argument can be made either way, but I do not personally have the data to decide which is best. Of course, that being from a purely quantifiable point of view.

I basically feel the same way about health care. As long as doctors administer treatment to anyone in the emergency room regardless of their ability to pay, then society as a whole has already decided to pay for health care for the poor. The pragmatic approach at this point is to decide if we pay more currently for emergency care or if we would pay more for national preventative care. From a purely logical, non-moral, and non-partisan point of view, the cheaper of the two options should be chosen. That is, unless doctors start checking bank accounts at the emergency room door.

Keep in mind, I'm not claiming our system of welfare is the best possible system or that it is run efficiently. Simply trying to make a logical argument to demonstrate that given the assumptions above, some expense will be paid by taxpayers to rear other people's children. The only way to avoid it is to change how we feel about human rights.

Thank you. This is what I was trying to say earlier, but your post put much better.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JS80
Without welfare, how else would Democrats get their constituents to come out and vote for them every year?

By offering an alternative to the party that serves the agenda of the richest, the corporatocracy, that sells out to the special interests who harm America like the military-industrial complex, and panders to the fringe groups who want power but are otherwise unelectable like the radical right groups; by offering the better policies on the economy and foreign relations, more fiscal responsibility, more competence in government, actually representing the public interest, protecting the environment, etc.

Without welfare, how would the Repuplicans replace an issue they can exploit and misrepresent to get ignorant, selfish people to vote for them against welfare?

I know plenty of Democrats who also despise the current welfare system. Get off your partisan sybian long enough to see that the system has some large holes that need patching.

People who completely give themselves over to one party, or another, are mindless lemmings or politicians. Which one are you?

Palehorse, the problem is, your posts are too (whatever a nicer word for idiotic might be) to say much in response to, but I'll explain why I say that.

There are different ways to reach the 'I'm in favor of one party over the other' position. Some are wrong, the kind you refer to, but another way is right, the kind you are utterly unaware of, based on your posts denying it exists in your 'list' of explanations why to support one party. That 'right' way is when you look at the issue and let the chips fall where they may - both parties right, both wrong, 2-1 ration of right to wrong, one party much more right than the other, wherever they fall.

You exclude the very possibility that the Democratic Party can be the clearly better party for the reasons I listed and more, not because you have any rational basis for doing so, but because you are a victim of the very closed-minded 'lemming' approach you refer to in your post. You may think that occassionally siding with the 'other party' disproves you are doing so, but you're wrong. Just because you aren't one typ of lemming, on being open to both parties having some good, doesn't mean you are not another type of lemming.

If you have as an *assumption* that the democrats - or the republicans - can't be 100% right, you are wrong. If you *determine* rationally that they're not 100% right, that's fine.

But in these discussion, there's a lot of hot air wasted by posters like you who don't deal with the isues, but throw around attacks and blather. I see nothing 'issuse based' from you.

I provided a list of specific issues. You are welcome to challenge, to discuss - even to agree, ha - with them and that's what the discussion should be based on, not your empty commentary not having anything to do with the issues, but only a knee-jerk, thoughtless attack when someone agrees too much with the democrats for your taste, however good the reason.

For the record, you also are not honest in your summary of my position. I have plenty of issues with the democrats - but few are in favor of Republicans nowadays.

There's nothing wrong with that; it's not for 'partisan' reasons.

In fact, I've gone through the 'oh my gosh the worst thing is to be partisan and agree with one party too much' centrist phase, and outgrown it. It's wrong to reject siding with one party simply for being afraid that that's somehow not being 'objective'. There's nothing magical making the two parties 'balanced' in how right they are on the issues. It's possible for one party to be a lot worse than the orher.

Now, all of this is so simple it's annoying to have to say, but your attack post was that off-base that I wasted the time this time.

Of *course* some democrats have 'issues' with welfare, that run the gamat from almost total opposition to wanting to increase it. Some of the people closely involved with its growth in the 60's, like Bill Moyers, have certainly said 'mistakes were made, lessones were learned' and few would say it's some perfect system. For that matter, some - a few - Republicans are not too opposed to welfare (especially if they needed it). So what? The basic difference in the overall party opinion and policy still exists between the parties.

There are a lot of myths on welfare, and its abuse, *because it's useful for welfare opponents to have a demon to run against, and to distract from their own corruption*.

We can differ on the policy, where I'm in support of the humanitarian and practial and even productive policy, while IMO you are for the inhumane, ignorant, short-sighted policy.

You are welcome to defend your position - but post something based on the issue. Just posting empty hot air attacks is a waste.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We don't need reform, we need the right kind of reform.

What is the right kind of reform, that you suggest?

First read again what I already said and think about it.

...

The goal if any plan should be to start wherever people are and build capacity. This means creating some space or environment, changing the system, so that people can have some opportunity to do for themselves, and to create something of worth. That can and should be done in a way that has nothing to do with helping them. People hate those who help them because they envy them. They compare who they are and who the helper is and use it to hate themselves more.

Give an example how this can be accomplished. It can be a historical reference where this has been successful, or a conceptual example that hasn't been tried yet. But give me an example of substance.

How about this one.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Give an example how this can be accomplished. It can be a historical reference where this has been successful, or a conceptual example that hasn't been tried yet. But give me an example of substance.

How about this one.

Well thats an interesting organization... getting homeless people to run, in Philadelphia.

I can't find any statistics of what the peak membership of just homeless are. I see a lot of non-homeless members and fundraising. I got this from the site:

# Founded in July 2007
# 102 Residential Members (we are averaging 25 new members a month)

Which I don't get. Its been 16 months since they were founded, but they only have 102 members. So if they are averaging 25 new members, then their dropout rate is horribly high. I still want to know how many of these members are actually homeless.

I won't complain though, its a cool concept...

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
When is this shit going to end? All it does is allow the lazy to continue to sit on their asses and be non productive members of our society. Their sole purpose in life is to make sure they collect their god damn welfare check. They then instill it in their kids to do the same and so they continue to produce these generations of fuck ups.

edit: I'm talking about the perfectly healthy fuck ups that abuse the system. I have no problem with our government helping out the disabled.

..it's not. it's a huge racket that gives elements in the gov.control over population masses.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Craig234
We can differ on the policy, where I'm in support of the humanitarian and practical, and even productive policy, while IMO you are for the inhumane, ignorant, short-sighted policy.

please explain that accusation.

 

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
When is this shit going to end? All it does is allow the lazy to continue to sit on their asses and be non productive members of our society. Their sole purpose in life is to make sure they collect their god damn welfare check. They then instill it in their kids to do the same and so they continue to produce these generations of fuck ups.

Believe it or not Louis Farrakhan shares the same opinion as you. He calls it a different form of slavery. Welfare assistance is fine if it's used properly but there are those who take advantage of it and make it so reviled amongst those who pay for it.

I use to share the same sentiment as the OP. Than lost my job as they shipped them overseas. I had to go on welfare for two months before I could find more work.

Obviously a lot of people abuse the system, but it is the only means of survival for alot of people. How about address the reason people are on welfare rather than kill what is keeping the poor masses alive.

did you go on unemployment or welfare?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Craig234
We can differ on the policy, where I'm in support of the humanitarian and practical, and even productive policy, while IMO you are for the inhumane, ignorant, short-sighted policy.

please explain that accusation.

I assume you are anti-welfare from the posts. It rests on that assumption; if not, say so.

It seems to me you follow the ideology that ignores many of the realities of our economic system and basically says 'welfare is a handout abused by people and a waste'.

I think welfare is humane, that it provides basics society can easily afford to get people who need it through difficult periods and that the good much outwieghs the abuse.

A person who has problems from poverty - lack of housing, lack of a shower and clean clothes, lack of transportation, lack of nutrition, lack of a phone, etc., that prevents them from employment, costs society a lot, not to mention the lost taxes from their income, the lost economic activity from their spending - and quite possibly even more when they turn to crime. It's an investment to get people what they need to get work. And even more for the children who need care to develop in a healthy way.

I said unhumane - because I think those who oppose welfare are advocating a policy that has a huge human cost. I said ignorant - because I see people who oppose welfare hold a variety of myths about it, about the lack of the good it does, the lack of how frequently people use it to get back to work, about the levels of abuse and the costs, and ignorance of the huge wastes in other areas of spending for the wealthy in constrast. I said short-sighted, because I think it's 'penny wise and pound foolish' for reasosns above.